RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Thadius -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/1/2008 11:50:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Here's a list of her positions from her run for Governor.

Only abstinence ed is question #3
Creationism is #2
Opposing gay civil unions is #10
More anti gay stuff in #12

As to trotting out a fringe nut like Farrakhan, I thought you were from Chicago? Mister bowtie is irrelevant and has been for better than a decade. Comparing him to Pat Robertson is apples to oranges. Now why don't you try and show me a quote by a major player in Democratic politics calling for  the "fumigation" of anyone.


Lets have a look at that questionaire... http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html
quote:

.
3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
JB: We should not exclude abstinence-until-marriage education programs.
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

2. Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?
JB: We should always encourage parents to participate in the curricula decisions of our school.
SP: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.

10. Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?
JB: No. The constitutional amendment was clear to me.
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.

12. In relationship to families, what are your top three priorities if elected governor?
JB: I will always support and work to strengthen families.
SP: 1. Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children.
2. Preserving the definition of “marriage” as defined in our constitution.
3. Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights.



Some really extreme positions there, eh?

Just sayin,
Thadius



DomKen -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/1/2008 11:56:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
I didn't realize that Randall Terry was a major player for Republicans, if he was why did he run on a different party's ticket in NY?  Define major player, one in the public spot light or a string puller?

Randall Terry was the guy behind all the Terry Schiavo bullshit. He was the advisor to the family and organized the protests and got the Republican pols involved. That's a string puller.



Owner59 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/1/2008 11:59:38 PM)

Well,I googled her,

and......

The Alaskan Independence Party is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska. Its best-known policy is its call for a United Nations vote, which they claim should have been offered as an option in the plebiscite on statehood under international law.

oh boy......


huhhh....interesting....

As a newly anointed neo-con,how do ya think she feels about the UN now?



Vendaval -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:05:50 AM)

General reply -
 
Governor Palin is a member of Feminists For Life

http://feministsforlife.org/news/ffl-member-sarah-palin-vp.htm

And according to her own spokesperson in the Governor's campaign in Alaska, opposes abortion in the case of rape or incest, making an exception only to save the life of the mother.  (I bolded the last lines for emphasis).

"Abortion draws clear divide in state races"

Palin, Knowles stand on opposite sides of debate

By Pat Forgey Juneau Empire  
" Palin, however, isn't interested in talking about her views.

"She would not seek out this issue. She feels like there are several other issues that are paramount to the future of the state," said Curtis Smith, spokesman for the Palin campaign.

Smith said Palin is opposed to abortion, but believes an exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger.
 
That's the only exception Palin would make, though, Smith said.
 
"She doesn't make exception for rape and incest, only for health of the mother," he said. "

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml



cyberdude611 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:06:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

This just in, Palin and her husband were members of the Alaska Independence Party in the 90's including attending the '94 party convention.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html

Now about "Country First," which country would that be?


And yet we arnt supposed to care that Obama belonged to a church for 20 years with anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright who says the US government invented the HIV virus and referes to this country as the "US of KKK-A."

Another non-issue.

Who cares what party she was 10 years ago. Reagan was a Democrat for most of his life, you know.

Believe it or not.....I used to be a Democrat.....back in the day when it wasnt run by communists like it is today.



DomKen -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:08:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Here's a list of her positions from her run for Governor.

Only abstinence ed is question #3
Creationism is #2
Opposing gay civil unions is #10
More anti gay stuff in #12

As to trotting out a fringe nut like Farrakhan, I thought you were from Chicago? Mister bowtie is irrelevant and has been for better than a decade. Comparing him to Pat Robertson is apples to oranges. Now why don't you try and show me a quote by a major player in Democratic politics calling for  the "fumigation" of anyone.


Lets have a look at that questionaire... http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html
quote:

.
3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
JB: We should not exclude abstinence-until-marriage education programs.
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

2. Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?
JB: We should always encourage parents to participate in the curricula decisions of our school.
SP: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.

10. Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?
JB: No. The constitutional amendment was clear to me.
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.

12. In relationship to families, what are your top three priorities if elected governor?
JB: I will always support and work to strengthen families.
SP: 1. Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children.
2. Preserving the definition of “marriage” as defined in our constitution.
3. Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights.



Some really extreme positions there, eh?

Just sayin,
Thadius


Abstinence only ed is bad for young people's health and most of the curriculum's contain blatant lies.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/24/nation/na-abstinence24
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412080002

Creationism and opting out of "offensive" instruction result in poorly educated people. Especially in the sciences and even more especially in the bio sciences. You may have noticed that the bio sciences are a big growth industry now so allowing the US to produce badly educated people is bad for teh future of the economy.

Spousal benefits include such things as being listed on life insurance, receiving medical insurance and receiving survivors benefits. Why is it a good thing to deny these things to same sex couple but not a good thing to deny them to opposite sex couples?

So yes all those positions are extreme and in all cases bad for minors or for people other than the true believer. I'm fine if an adult wants to reject science, reason and doesn't want to be in a same sex relationship. However I'm of the firm belief that that right ends at their own nose. Tood bad you don't.



FirmhandKY -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:11:07 AM)

O59,

I find your (and others) continued use of the term "fundies" insulting, belittling and counterproductive to everything that you as a self-described "liberal" claim to believe and espouse.

To you and many other "liberals" who so vigorously exclaim about "Freedom of Religion" what you actually mean is "Freedom from Religion".

You have a belief system which you will use to shape the laws and the rights of others, yet denigrate and castigate others (Christians) who base their own actions on their belief system (because yours is "correct" and theirs is "wrong").

You strut around with your nose in the air with a sense of moral superiority and entitlement for being so "compassionate", "understanding" and worried about "the rights of everyone" yet your words and actions give lie to everything you say.

I find it both amusing and disingenuous when people on the left reveal their depths of hypocrisy this way.

I think Palin has been, and will continue to be a perfect foil for people such as you to reveal their true selves and beliefs. She is like red-meat to the left, highlighting the deep hypocrisy and hatred that has been (mostly) hidden during the run up to the Democratic Convention. And while you and the other vocal "lefties" here think you are doing some good with all these insulting, depraved and petty comments and attacks on Palin, all you are actually doing is helping the more thoughtful and balanced undecided voters get your full measure.

And it ain't pretty.

Firm



Owner59 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:15:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

This just in, Palin and her husband were members of the Alaska Independence Party in the 90's including attending the '94 party convention.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html

Now about "Country First," which country would that be?


And yet we arnt supposed to care that Obama belonged to a church for 20 years with anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright who says the US government invented the HIV virus and referes to this country as the "US of KKK-A."

Another non-issue.

Who cares what party she was 10 years ago. Reagan was a Democrat for most of his life, you know.

Believe it or not.....I used to be a Democrat.....back in the day when it wasnt run by communists like it is today.


So, you would say "god bless America",.... for Tuskegee,the KKK , Jim Crow laws and segregation?

Ok....got it......

For those things,I say god damm America.

Ok,....what`a ya gonna say about`t?!



Thadius -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:22:50 AM)

So something he did for a woman's parents in 2003 makes him a string puller because he got national attention. Gotcha.  So I guess that definition rules out just insiders, that expands the possibilities a whole bunch.

No what I mean... Folks like Dr. Kaif Mahammed, Dr. Shabazz, Cliffton Bradley, just to name a couple.



cyberdude611 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:23:47 AM)

My point is that people's political and personal beliefs change over time. I am sure you would agree with me on that, or not?

Remember that Robert Byrd was once a leader in the KKK.



Owner59 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:32:12 AM)

"Freedom of Religion"includes "Freedom from Religion".

Think about it.

If you can`t distinguish between the lunatic fringe christo-fascists and regular church goers,regular believers in Christ,normal rational fundamentalists types,then maybe you shouldn`t play in the OTD board.

Problem is,the GOP leadership is wed to these nuts,for better and for worse.



Thadius -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:32:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Abstinence only ed is bad for young people's health and most of the curriculum's contain blatant lies.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/24/nation/na-abstinence24
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412080002

Creationism and opting out of "offensive" instruction result in poorly educated people. Especially in the sciences and even more especially in the bio sciences. You may have noticed that the bio sciences are a big growth industry now so allowing the US to produce badly educated people is bad for teh future of the economy.

Spousal benefits include such things as being listed on life insurance, receiving medical insurance and receiving survivors benefits. Why is it a good thing to deny these things to same sex couple but not a good thing to deny them to opposite sex couples?

So yes all those positions are extreme and in all cases bad for minors or for people other than the true believer. I'm fine if an adult wants to reject science, reason and doesn't want to be in a same sex relationship. However I'm of the firm belief that that right ends at their own nose. Tood bad you don't.


Look at the question and answer again, she said she would not fund "EXPLICIT SEX ED".

How do you explain the success of kids that are home schooled or in parochial schools (regardless of which faith)?

Notice that even the Dem on that questionaire answered NO to the question, as it is already in their state constitution, therefore nothing is stopping folks from creating legal contracts, which could include power of attorney, and or other benefits,...  It is not the executives position to overturn the constitution it is to uphold it.

Sorry that you feel that the government is the best place to make decisions on what is best for responsible parents and which beliefs they wish to teach their kids.

I for one want less government interference in my life.  I see both extreme sides of the political spectrum trying to tell me how to live, or how much money I am able to earn and spend.  They can all piss off.  How's that for a blunt answer?




Owner59 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:35:33 AM)

  cyberdude.


Yes I agree.But it requires sincere contrition and a pledge to not be a fuck-up again.

Didn`t Byrd renounce his past and apologize?



philosophy -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:37:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


To you and many other "liberals" who so vigorously exclaim about "Freedom of Religion" what you actually mean is "Freedom from Religion".



...not meaning to be contentious, but in a strictly political context isn't freedom from religion simply another way of defining a seperation of religion and government?



Thadius -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 12:42:30 AM)

Hiya V,

From your same article..
quote:

Smith said the important thing about Palin's abortion views is that she wouldn't be proposing new anti-abortion legislation, and that while her views on the subject are firm, she's not running for office to advocate for them.


Notice that there is no quote of her saying that she she doesn't believe in certain exceptions or her campaign guy saying it, or in any article or interview I have read... here is another very much like the one you just posted.
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html

quote:


The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."


That is the closest thing you will find.  Trust me I have been looking, and that is the closest to it I have found.



FirmhandKY -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 1:01:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


To you and many other "liberals" who so vigorously exclaim about "Freedom of Religion" what you actually mean is "Freedom from Religion".



...not meaning to be contentious, but in a strictly political context isn't freedom from religion simply another way of defining a seperation of religion and government?


No, not really.

The problem is that it's a battle between two different belief systems, in which "lefties" try to use the "separation of church and state" as a tool to prevent people who have religious beliefs from acting their moral conscious in the public arena.

In other words, since the "liberal" moral sense differs from the "Christian" moral sense, the goal is to defeat the political by marginalizing the religious, simply because the morality is based on a particular organized religion (Christianity).

It's a very socially destructive ad hominem attack.

A "liberal" finds "acting in concert with one's conscience" a perfectly acceptable answer ... as long as the actions agree with their political agenda. Otherwise, you are a "fundie".

Separation of church and state is simply a red herring, and an excuse to carry out the attack.

Firm

edited for spelling and syntax.



FirmhandKY -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 1:08:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

"Freedom of Religion"includes "Freedom from Religion".

Think about it.

If you can`t distinguish between the lunatic fringe christo-fascists and regular church goers,regular believers in Christ,normal rational fundamentalists types,then maybe you shouldn`t play in the OTD board.

Problem is,the GOP leadership is wed to these nuts,for better and for worse.



I've likely thought about it more than you have, my friend.

While I agree that "Freedom from Religion" is a subset of "Freedom of Religion", attacking someone simply because of they have religious beliefs is not a sub-set of "Freedom of Religion". It is its anti-thesis.

Think about it.

Firm

PS. One or two people who have certain beliefs may be able to be described as "nut-cases". When millions of people have those beliefs for generations, I'm not sure they qualify as "nut-cases" simply because you disagree with them.



Owner59 -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 1:33:00 AM)

 
Just attacking those who wish to impose their beliefs on others.

I hate bullies.

That includes fundies of every stripe and type.

The one`s who`ll kill you if you don`t convert, to those that would outlaw abortion or contraception because the bible says so ,and every one in between.

I think our nation has the right to know what the deal is.

The cons conned us pretty good with the last VP.

Should we take another chance?

Can we ask these questions without damaging your delicate sensibilities?



FirmhandKY -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 1:45:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

 
Just attacking those who wish to impose their beliefs on others.



Looked in the mirror lately?

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/2/2008 1:58:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I hate bullies.

That includes fundies of every stripe and type.

I detest bullies as well.

As I said before, I find the term "fundie" to be bullying and belittling, and I disagree with your definition.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The one`s who`ll kill you if you don`t convert, to those that would outlaw abortion or contraception because the bible says so ,and every one in between.

Agreed, "killing if you don't convert" is bad, and against the Christian belief system.

Outlawing abortion or contraception ... well, I don't think there is any serious attempts to "outlaw" contraception.

As for abortion, perhaps you might take some time to consider why it's such a touchstone issue with "the other side"?

We undersand that your side places a greater value on the "rights" of a woman. Our moral system places the greatest right on the right of the unborn to live.

We disagree as to when the "unborn' become human ... and I doubt we'll solve it scientifically, because it is really a moral decision.

Perhaps you can back up and appreciate that the question is really a clash in basic belief systems, and the goal on both sides is for the "best" good. We simply disagree on which "right" we place the higher value on.

This is someone detestable, as your wording seems to imply?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I think our nation has the right to know what the deal is.

The cons conned us pretty good with the last VP.

Should we take another chance?

I disagree with your basic premise in these two lines, but am willing to see your point of view.

I simply don't agree with it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Can we ask these questions without damaging your delicate sensibilities?

I don't have "delicate sensibilities". I just saw that no one else was pointing out the hate speech, and therefore did so myself.

Something in my moral code about "personal responsibility" ya know.

Firm



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875